OUR VIEW: Savings worth the cost?

Published: Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 5:17 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 5:18 p.m.

The Postal Service continues to hemorrhage red ink, losing nearly $16 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $1.3 billion and $1.9 billion in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2013.

It’s tried shedding jobs and facilities and raising prices to clot that wound. Its plan to stop Saturday mail delivery to save money met a congressional roadblock, although the idea hasn’t been dropped.

Now, there’s a chance door-to-door mail delivery of any type, on any day, might go away.

That drastic proposal is part of a postal reform plan offered by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that would save the Postal Service up to $4.5 billion a year.

It would phase out door-to-door delivery by 2022. Mail instead would be delivered to cluster boxes placed in centralized spots in neighborhoods, or curbside boxes such as at the end of driveways.

This isn’t a new trend. The Postal Service has pushed it for new residential developments for close to 40 years, and in April ordained that it would make the call on those setups, rather than real estate developers.

There’s no question of the potential savings. Door-to-door delivery costs are more than double that of cluster box delivery and 56 percent higher than curbside delivery.

The move also would affect a minority of postal customers. Only 30 million people receive mail at their doors, compared to 87 million at cluster or curbside boxes.

However, we’d wager a lot of that 25.6 percent of mail customers who still get mail brought to their doors are elderly people, or people who don’t get out a lot, who would be inconvenienced by this change. Those who could prove true hardship could apply for an exemption to continue door-to-door delivery, or mail customers could pay for the privilege, but that’s going to involve navigating bureaucratic red tape for people who, again, might find that a challenge (or not affordable).

Also, Issa maintains the cluster boxes would be placed in safe, secure areas. That might be doable in newly designed developments, but may not be as easy in old and congested urban neighborhoods.

Issa’s committee approved the bill on a party-line vote, and we’ll be interested in what happens in the full House (and Senate).

We don’t have any grand or specific answers for fixing the Postal Service. It’s battling sociological and technological changes that aren’t going away, as well as a requirement to prefund its benefit obligations that no other government agency or business faces.

A 2006 law mandated that prefunding, covering 75 years, and that it be done within a decade. The Postal Service twice last year defaulted on payments for those benefits, and many blame the requirement for the current financial mess (we’ve said it needs to be revisited).

Still, slicing off a delivery day is one thing. Ending something as enduring and universal as door-to-door delivery strikes at the noun that ends this agency’s name — service. Are the savings worth that cost?

<p>The Postal Service continues to hemorrhage red ink, losing nearly $16 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $1.3 billion and $1.9 billion in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2013.</p><p>It's tried shedding jobs and facilities and raising prices to clot that wound. Its plan to stop Saturday mail delivery to save money met a congressional roadblock, although the idea hasn't been dropped.</p><p>Now, there's a chance door-to-door mail delivery of any type, on any day, might go away.</p><p>That drastic proposal is part of a postal reform plan offered by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that would save the Postal Service up to $4.5 billion a year.</p><p>It would phase out door-to-door delivery by 2022. Mail instead would be delivered to cluster boxes placed in centralized spots in neighborhoods, or curbside boxes such as at the end of driveways.</p><p>This isn't a new trend. The Postal Service has pushed it for new residential developments for close to 40 years, and in April ordained that it would make the call on those setups, rather than real estate developers.</p><p>There's no question of the potential savings. Door-to-door delivery costs are more than double that of cluster box delivery and 56 percent higher than curbside delivery.</p><p>The move also would affect a minority of postal customers. Only 30 million people receive mail at their doors, compared to 87 million at cluster or curbside boxes.</p><p>However, we'd wager a lot of that 25.6 percent of mail customers who still get mail brought to their doors are elderly people, or people who don't get out a lot, who would be inconvenienced by this change. Those who could prove true hardship could apply for an exemption to continue door-to-door delivery, or mail customers could pay for the privilege, but that's going to involve navigating bureaucratic red tape for people who, again, might find that a challenge (or not affordable). </p><p>Also, Issa maintains the cluster boxes would be placed in safe, secure areas. That might be doable in newly designed developments, but may not be as easy in old and congested urban neighborhoods.</p><p>Issa's committee approved the bill on a party-line vote, and we'll be interested in what happens in the full House (and Senate).</p><p>We don't have any grand or specific answers for fixing the Postal Service. It's battling sociological and technological changes that aren't going away, as well as a requirement to prefund its benefit obligations that no other government agency or business faces.</p><p>A 2006 law mandated that prefunding, covering 75 years, and that it be done within a decade. The Postal Service twice last year defaulted on payments for those benefits, and many blame the requirement for the current financial mess (we've said it needs to be revisited).</p><p>Still, slicing off a delivery day is one thing. Ending something as enduring and universal as door-to-door delivery strikes at the noun that ends this agency's name — service. Are the savings worth that cost?</p>